1920), Prof. Haupt made the suggestion that _sa-bi-tum_ (or _tu_),
hitherto regarded as a proper name, is an epithet describing the
woman who dwells at the seashore which Gilgamesh in the course of his
wanderings reaches, as an "innkeeper". It is noticeable that the term
always appears without the determinative placed before proper names;
and since in the old Babylonian version (so far as preserved) and
in the Assyrian version, the determinative is invariably used, its
consistent absence in the case of _sabitum_ (Assyrian Version, Tablet
X, 1, 1, 10, 15, 20; 2, 15-16 [_sa-bit_]; Meissner fragment col. 2,
11-12) speaks in favor of Professor Haupt's suggestion. The meaning
"innkeeper", while not as yet found in Babylonian-Assyrian literature
is most plausible, since we have _sabu_ as a general name for 'drink',
though originally designating perhaps more specifically sesame wine
(Muss-Arnolt, Assyrian Dictionary, p. 745b) or distilled brandy,
according to Prof. Haupt. Similarly, in the Aramaic dialects, _se_bha
is used for "to drink" and in the Pael to "furnish drink". Muss-Arnolt
in his Assyrian Dictionary, 746b, has also recognized that _sabitum_
was originally an epithet and compares the Aramaic _se_bhoyâthâ(p1)
"barmaids". In view of the bad reputation of inns in ancient Babylonia
as brothels, it would be natural for an epithet like _sabitum_ to
become the equivalent to "public" women, just as the inn was a "public"
house. Sabitum would, therefore, have the same force as _samhatu_
(the "harlot"), used in the Gilgamesh Epic by the side of _harimtu_
"woman" (see the note to line 46 of Pennsylvania Tablet). The Sumerian
term for the female innkeeper is Sal Gestinna "the woman of the wine,"
known to us from the Hammurabi Code §§108-111. The bad reputation of
inns is confirmed by these statutes, for the house of the Sal Gestinna
is a gathering place for outlaws. The punishment of a female devotee
who enters the "house of a wine woman" (bît Sal Gestinna §110) is
death. It was not "prohibition" that prompted so severe a punishment,
but the recognition of the purpose for which a devotee would enter
such a house of ill repute. The speech of the _sabitum_ or innkeeper
to Gilgamesh (above, p. 12) was, therefore, an invitation to stay with
her, instead of seeking for life elsewhere. Viewed as coming from a
"public woman" the address becomes significant. The invitation would
be parallel to the temptation offered by the _harimtu_ in the first
tablet of the Enkidu, and to which Enkidu succumbs. The incident
in the tablet would, therefore, form a parallel in the adventures
of Gilgamesh to the one that originally belonged to the Enkidu
cycle. Finally, it is quite possible that _sabitum_ is actually the
Akkadian equivalent of the Sumerian Sal Gestinna, though naturally
until this equation is confirmed by a syllabary or by other direct
evidence, it remains a conjecture. See now also Albright's remarks
on Sabitum in the A. J. S. L. 36, pp. 269 _seq._]
CORRECTIONS TO THE TEXT OF LANGDON'S EDITION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA
TABLET. [157]
Column 1.
5. Read _it-lu-tim_ ("heroes") instead of _id-da-tim_ ("omens").
6. Read _ka-ka-bu_ instead of _ka-ka-'a_. This disposes of Langdon's
note 2 on p. 211.
9 Read _ú-ni-is-sú-ma_, "I became weak" (from _enêsu_, "weak") instead
of _ilam is-sú-ma_, "He bore a net"(!). This disposes of Langdon's
note 5 on page 211.
10. Read _Urukki_ instead of _ad-ki_. Langdon's note 7 is wrong.
12. Langdon's note 8 is wrong. _ú-um-mid-ma pu-ti_ does not mean
"he attained my front."
14. Read _ab-ba-la-ás-sú_ instead of _at-ba-la-ás-sú_.
15. Read _mu-di-a-at_ instead of _mu-u-da-a-at_.
20. Read _ta-ha-du_ instead of an impossible _[sa]-ah-ha-ta_--two
mistakes in one word. Supply _kima Sal_ before _tahadu_.
22. Read _ás-sú_ instead of _sú_; and at the end of the line read
_[tu-ut]-tu-ú-ma_ instead of _sú-ú-zu_.
23. Read _ta-tar-ra-[as-su]_.
24. Read _[us]-ti-nim-ma_ instead of _[is]-ti-lam-ma_.
28. Read at the beginning _sá_ instead of _ina_.
29. Langdon's text and transliteration of the first word do not
tally. Read _ha-as-si-nu_, just as in line 31.
32. Read _ah-ta-du_ ("I rejoiced") instead of _ah-ta-ta_.
Column 2.
4. Read at the end of the line _di-da-sá(?) ip-tí-[e]_ instead of
_Di-?-al-lu-un_ (!).
5. Supply _d_En-ki-du at the beginning. Traces point to this reading.
19. Read _[gi]-it-ma-[lu]_ after _d_Gis, as suggested by the Assyrian
version, Tablet I, 4, 38, where _emûku_ ("strength") replaces _nepistu_
of our text.
20. Read _at-[ta kima Sal ta-ha]-bu-[ub]-sú_.
21. Read _ta-[ra-am-sú ki-ma]_.
23. Read as one word _ma-a-ag-ri-i-im_ ("accursed"), spelled in
characteristic Hammurabi fashion, instead of dividing into two words
_ma-a-ak_ and _ri-i-im_, as Langdon does, who suggests as a translation
"unto the place yonder(?) of the shepherd"(!).
24. Read _im-ta-har_ instead of _im-ta-gar_.
32. Supply _ili_(?) after _ki-ma_.
33. Read _sá-ri-i-im_ as one word.
35. Read _i-na [ás]-ri-sú [im]-hu-ru_.
36. Traces at beginning point to either _ù_ or _ki_ (=
_itti_). Restoration of lines 36-39 (perhaps to be distributed into
five lines) on the basis of the Assyrian version, Tablet I, 4, 2-5.
Column 3.
14. Read _Kàs_ (= _sikaram_, "wine") _si-ti_, "drink," as in line 17,
instead of _bi-is-ti_, which leads Langdon to render this perfectly
simple line "of the conditions and the fate of the land"(!).
21. Read _it-tam-ru_ instead of _it-ta-bir-ru_.
22. Supply _[lù_Sú]-I.
29. Read _ú-gi-ir-ri_ from _garû_ ("attack), instead of separating into
_ú_ and _gi-ir-ri_, as Langdon does, who translates "and the lion." The
sign used can _never_ stand for the copula! Nor is _girru_, "lion!"
30. Read _Síbmes_, "shepherds," instead of _sab-[si]-es_!
31. _sib-ba-ri_ is not "mountain goat," nor can _ut-tap-pi-is_ mean
"capture." The first word means "dagger," and the second "he drew out."
33. Read _it-ti-[lu] na-ki-[di-e]_, instead of _itti immer nakie_
which yields no sense. Langdon's rendering, even on the basis of his
reading of the line, is a grammatical monstrosity.
35. Read _gis_ instead of _wa_.
37. Read perhaps _a-na [na-ki-di-e i]- za-ak-ki-ir_.
Column 4.
4. The first sign is clearly _iz_, not _ta_, as Langdon has it in
note 1 on page 216.
9. The fourth sign is _su_, not _sú_.
10. Separate _e-es_ ("why") from the following. Read _ta-hi-[il]_,
followed, perhaps, by _la_. The last sign is not certain; it may
be _ma_.
11. Read _lim-nu_ instead of _mi-nu_. In the same line read _a-la-ku
ma-na-ah-[ti]-ka_ instead of _a-la-ku-zu_(!) _na-ah ... ma_, which,
naturally, Langdon cannot translate.
16. Read _e-lu-tim_ instead of _pa-a-ta-tim_. The first sign of
the line, _tu_, is not certain, because apparently written over an
erasure. The second sign may be _a_. Some one has scratched the tablet
at this point.
18. Read _uk-la-at âli_ (?) instead of _ug-ad-ad-lil_, which gives
no possible sense!
Column 5.
2. Read _[wa]-ar-ki-sú_.
8. Read _i-ta-wa-a_ instead of _i-ta-me-a_. The word _pi-it-tam_
belongs to line 9! The sign _pi_ is unmistakable. This disposes of
note 1 on p. 218.
9. Read Mi = _salmu_, "image." This disposes of Langdon's note 2 on
page 218. Of six notes on this page, four are wrong.
11. The first sign appears to be _si_ and the second _ma_. At the
end we are perhaps to supply _[sá-ki-i pu]-uk-ku-ul_, on the basis
of the Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 2, 45, _sá-ki-i pu-[uk-ku-ul]_.
12. Traces at end of line suggest _i-pa(?)-ka-du_.
13. Read _i-[na mâti da-an e-mu]-ki i-wa_.
18. Read _ur-sá-nu_ instead of _ip-sá-nu_.
19. Read _i-sá-ru_ instead of _i-tu-ru_.
24. The reading _it-ti_ after _d_Gis is suggested by the traces.
25. Read _in-ni-[ib-bi-it]_ at the end of the line.
28. Read _ip-ta-ra-[as a-la]-ak-tam_ at the end of the line, as in
the Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 2, 37.
30. The conjectural restoration is based on the Assyrian version,
Tablet IV, 2, 36.
Column 6.
3. Read _i-na si-ri-[sú]_.
5. Supply _[il-li-ik]_.
21. Langdon's text has a superfluous _ga_.
22. Read _uz-za-sú_, "his anger," instead of _us-sa-sú_, "his javelin"
(!).
23. Read _i-ni-ih i-ra-as-su_, i.e., "his breast was quieted," in
the sense of "his anger was appeased."
31. Read _ri-es-ka_ instead of _ri-es-su_.
In general, it should be noted that the indications of the number of
lines missing at the bottom of columns 1-3 and at the top of columns
4-6 as given by Langdon are misleading. Nor should he have drawn
any lines at the bottom of columns 1-3 as though the tablet were
complete. Besides in very many cases the space indications of what
is missing within a line are inaccurate. Dr. Langdon also omitted to
copy the statement on the edge: _4 sú-si_, i.e., "240 lines;" and
in the colophon he mistranslates _sú-tu-ur_, "written," as though
from _satâru_, "write," whereas the form is the permansive III, 1,
of _atâru_, "to be in excess of." The sign _tu_ never has the value
_tu_! In all, Langdon has misread the text or mistransliterated it in
over forty places, and of the 204 preserved lines he has mistranslated
about one-half.
NOTES
[1] See for further details of this royal library, Jastrow,
_Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 21 _seq_.
[2] _Das Babylonische Nimrodepos_ (Leipzig, 1884-1891), supplemented
by Haupt's article _Die Zwölfte Tafel des Babylonischen Nimrodepos_ in
_BA_ I, pp. 48-79, containing the fragments of the twelfth tablet. The
fragments of the Epic in Ashurbanapal's library--some sixty--represent
portions of several copies. Sin-likî-unnini--perhaps from Erech,
since this name appears as that of a family in tablets from Erech
(see Clay, _Legal Documents from Erech_, Index, p. 73)--is named in a
list of texts (K 9717--Haupt's edition No. 51, line 18) as the editor
of the Epic, though probably he was not the only compiler. Since the
publication of Haupt's edition, a few fragments were added by him
as an appendix to Alfred Jeremias _Izdubar-Nimrod_ (Leipzig, 1891)
Plates II-IV, and two more are embodied in Jensen's transliteration
of all the fragments in the _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_ VI;
pp. 116-265, with elaborate notes, pp. 421-531. Furthermore a
fragment, obtained from supplementary excavations at Kouyunjik,
has been published by L. W. King in his _Supplement to the Catalogue
of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British
Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum_
No. 56 and _PSBA_ Vol. 36, pp. 64-68. Recently a fragment of the 6th
tablet from the excavations at Assur has been published by Ebeling,
_Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Religiösen Inhalts_ No. 115, and one may
expect further portions to turn up.
The designation "Nimrod Epic" on the supposition that the hero of
the Babylonian Epic is identical with Nimrod, the "mighty hunter"
of Genesis 10, has now been generally abandoned, in the absence of
any evidence that the Babylonian hero bore a name like Nimrod. For
all that, the description of Nimrod as the "mighty hunter" and the
occurrence of a "hunter" in the Babylonian Epic (Assyrian version
Tablet I)--though he is not the hero--points to a confusion in
the Hebrew form of the borrowed tradition between Gilgamesh and
Nimrod. The latest French translation of the Epic is by Dhorme,
_Choix de Textes Religieux Assyro-Babyloniens_ (Paris, 1907),
pp. 182-325; the latest German translation by Ungnad-Gressmann,
_Das Gilgamesch-Epos_ (Göttingen, 1911), with a valuable analysis
and discussion. These two translations now supersede Jensen's
translation in the _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, which, however,
is still valuable because of the detailed notes, containing a wealth
of lexicographical material. Ungnad also gave a partial translation in
Gressmann-Ranke, _Altorientalische Texte and Bilder_ I, pp. 39-61. In
English, we have translations of substantial portions by Muss-Arnolt
in Harper's _Assyrian and Babylonian Literature_ (New York, 1901),
pp. 324-368; by Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (Boston,
1898), Chap. XXIII; by Clay in _Light on the Old Testament from Babel_,
pp. 78-84; by Rogers in _Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament_,
pp. 80-103; and most recently by Jastrow in _Sacred Books and Early
Literature of the East_ (ed. C. F. Horne, New York, 1917), Vol. I,
pp. 187-220.
[3] See Luckenbill in _JAOS_, Vol. 37, p. 452 _seq._ Prof. Clay,
it should be added, clings to the older reading, Hammurabi, which is
retained in this volume.
[4] _ZA_, Vol. 14, pp. 277-292.
[5] The survivor of the Deluge is usually designated as Ut-napishtim
in the Epic, but in one passage (Assyrian version, Tablet XI, 196),
he is designated as Atra-hasis "the very wise one." Similarly, in
a second version of the Deluge story, also found in Ashurbanapal's
library (IV R2 additions, p. 9, line 11). The two names clearly
point to two versions, which in accordance with the manner of ancient
compositions were merged into one. See an article by Jastrow in _ZA_,
Vol. 13, pp. 288-301.
[6] Published by Scheil in _Recueil des Travaux_, etc. Vol. 20,
pp. 55-58.
[7] The text does not form part of the Gilgamesh Epic, as the colophon,
differing from the one attached to the Epic, shows.
[8] _Ein altbabylonisches Fragment des Gilgamosepos_ (_MVAG_ 1902,
No. 1).
[9] On these variant forms of the two names see the discussion below,
p. 24.
[10] The passage is paralleled by Ecc. 9, 7-9. See Jastrow, _A Gentle
Cynic_, p. 172 _seq._
[11] Among the Nippur tablets in the collection of the University
of Pennsylvania Museum. The fragment was published by Dr. Poebel in
his _Historical and Grammatical Texts_ No. 23. See also Poebel in the
_Museum Journal_, Vol. IV, p. 47, and an article by Dr. Langdon in the
same Journal, Vol. VII, pp. 178-181, though Langdon fails to credit
Dr. Poebel with the discovery and publication of the important tablet.
[12] No. 55 in Langdon's _Historical and Religious Texts from the
Temple Library of Nippur_ (Munich, 1914).
[13] No. 5 in his _Sumerian Liturgical Texts_. (Philadelphia, 1917)
[14] See on this name below, p. 23.
[15] See further below, p. 37 _seq_.
[16] See Poebel, _Historical and Grammatical Texts_, No. 1, and
Jastrow in _JAOS_, Vol. 36, pp. 122-131 and 274-299.
[17] See an article by Jastrow, _Sumerian and Akkadian Views of
Beginnings_ (_JAOS_ Vol. 36, pp. 274-299).
[18] See on this point Eduard Meyer, _Sumerier und Semiten in
Babylonien_ (Berlin, 1906), p. 107 _seq_., whose view is followed
in Jastrow, _Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 121. See
also Clay, _Empire of the Amorites_ (Yale University Press, 1919),
p. 23 _et seq_.
[19] See the discussion below, p. 24 _seq_.
[20] Dr. Poebel published an article on the tablet in _OLZ_, 1914,
pp. 4-6, in which he called attention to the correct name for the
mother of Gilgamesh, which was settled by the tablet as Ninsun.
[21] _Historical Texts_ No. 2, Column 2, 26. See the discussion in
_Historical and Grammatical Texts_, p. 123, _seq._
[22] See Fostat in _OLZ_, 1915, p. 367.
[23] _Publications of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Babylonian
Section_, Vol. X, No. 3 (Philadelphia, 1917). It is to be regretted
that Dr. Langdon should not have given full credit to Dr. Poebel for
his discovery of the tablet. He merely refers in an obscure footnote
to Dr. Poebel's having made a copy.
[24] E.g., in the very first note on page 211, and again in a note
on page 213.
[25] Dr. Langdon neglected to copy the signs _4 sú-si_ = 240 which
appear on the edge of the tablet. He also misunderstood the word
_sú-tu-ur_ in the colophon which he translated "written," taking
the word from a stem _satâru_, "write." The form _sú-tu-ur_ is III,
1, from _atâru_, "to be in excess of," and indicates, presumably,
that the text is a copy "enlarged" from an older original. See the
Commentary to the colophon, p. 86.
[26] _Museum Journal_, Vol. VIII, p. 29.
[27] See below, p. 23.
[28] I follow the enumeration of tablets, columns and lines in Jensen's
edition, though some fragments appear to have been placed by him in
a wrong position.
[29] According to Bezold's investigation, _Verbalsuffixformen als
Alterskriterien babylonisch-assyrischer Inschriften_ (Heidelberg
Akad. d. Wiss., Philos.-Histor. Klasse, 1910, 9te Abhandlung), the
bulk of the tablets in Ashurbanapal's library are copies of originals
dating from about 1500 B.C. It does not follow, however, that all
the copies date from originals of the same period. Bezold reaches
the conclusion on the basis of various forms for verbal suffixes,
that the fragments from the Ashurbanapal Library actually date from
three distinct periods ranging from before c. 1450 to c. 700 B.C.
[30] "Before thou comest from the mountain, Gilgamesh in Erech will
see thy dreams," after which the dreams are recounted by the woman
to Enkidu. The expression "thy dreams" means here "dreams about
thee." (Tablet I, 5, 23-24).
[31] Lines 100-101.
[32] In a paper read before the American Oriental Society at New Haven,
April 4, 1918.
[33] See the commentary to col. 4 of the Yale tablet for further
details.
[34] This is no doubt the correct reading of the three signs which
used to be read Iz-tu-bar or Gish-du-bar. The first sign has commonly
the value Gish, the second can be read Gin or Gi (Brünnow No. 11900)
and the third Mash as well as Bar. See Ungnad in Ungnad-Gressmann,
_Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 76, and Poebel, _Historical and Grammatical
Texts_, p. 123.
[35] So also in Sumerian (Zimmern, _Sumerische Kultlieder aus
altbabylonischer Zeit_, No. 196, rev. 14 and 16.)
[36] The sign used, LUM (Brünnow No. 11183), could have the value hu
as well as hum.
[37] The addition "father-in-law of Moses" to the name Hobab b. Re'uel
in this passage must refer to Re'uel, and not to Hobab. In Judges 4,
11, the gloss "of the Bene Hobab, the father-in-law of Moses" must
be separated into two: (1) "Bene Hobab," and (2) "father-in-law of
Moses." The latter addition rests on an erroneous tradition, or is
intended as a brief reminder that Hobab is identical with the son
of Re'uel.
[38] See his _List of Personal Names from the Temple School of
Nippur_, p. 122. _Hu-um-ba-bi-tu_ and _si-kin hu-wa-wa_ also occur
in Omen Texts (_CT_ XXVII, 4, 8-9 = Pl. 3, 17 = Pl. 6, 3-4 = _CT_
XXVIII, 14, 12). The contrast to _huwawa_ is _ligru_, "dwarf" (_CT_
XXVII, 4, 12 and 14 = Pl. 6, 7.9 = Pl. 3, 19). See Jastrow, _Religion
Babyloniens und Assyriens_, II, p. 913, Note 7. Huwawa, therefore,
has the force of "monster."
[39] Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 111 _seq._
[40] Ungnad, 1. c. p. 77, called attention to this name, but failed
to draw the conclusion that Hu(m)baba therefore belongs to the West
and not to the East.
[41] First pointed out by Ungnad in _OLZ_ 1910, p. 306, on the basis
of _CT_ XVIII, 30, 10, where En-gi-dú appears in the column furnishing
_phonetic_ readings.
[42] See Clay _Amurru_, pp. 74, 129, etc.
[43] Tablet I, 2, 39-40; 3, 6-7 and 33-34; 4, 3-4.
[44] Tablet I, 2, 1 and IX, 2, 16. Note also the statement about
Gilgamesh that "his body is flesh of the gods" (Tablet IX, 2, 14; X,
1, 7).
[45] _BOR_ IV, p. 264.
[46] Lewin, _Die Scholien des Theodor bar Koni zur
Patriarchengeschichte_ (Berlin, 1905), p. 2. See Gressmann in
Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 83, who points out that
the first element of GLMGVS compared with the second of GMYGMVS gives
the exact form that we require, namely, Gilgamos.
[47] Tablet I, col. 2, is taken up with this episode.
[48] See Poebel, _Historical and Grammatical Texts_, p. 123.
[49] See Poebel, _Historical Texts_ No. 2, col. 2, 26.
[50] Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_ I, 1 No. 26.
[51] Delitzsch, _Assyrische Lesestücke_, p. 88, VI, 2-3. Cf. also
_CT_ XXV, 28(K 7659) 3, where we must evidently supply [Esigga]-tuk,
for which in the following line we have again Gish-bil-ga-mesh as an
equivalent. See Meissner, _OLZ_ 1910, 99.
[52] See, e.g., Barton, _Haverford Collection_ II No. 27, Col. I,
14, etc.
[53] Deimel, _Pantheon Babylonicum_, p. 95.
[54] _CT_ XII, 50 (K 4359) obv. 17.
[55] See Barton, _Origin and Development of Babylonian Writing_, II,
p. 99 _seq._, for various explanations, though all centering around
the same idea of the picture of fire in some form.
[56] See the passages quoted by Poebel, _Historical and Grammatical
Texts_, p. 126.
[57] E.g., Genesis 4, 20, Jabal, "the father of tent-dwelling and
cattle holding;" Jubal (4, 21), "the father of harp and pipe striking."
[58] See particularly the plays (in the J. Document) upon the names of
the twelve sons of Jacob, which are brought forward either as tribal
characteristics, or as suggested by some incident or utterance by
the mother at the birth of each son.
[59] The designation is variously explained by Arabic writers. See
Beidhawi's _Commentary_ (ed. Fleischer), to Súra 18, 82.
[60] The writing Gish-gi-mash as an approach to the pronunciation
Gilgamesh would thus represent the beginning of the artificial process
which seeks to interpret the first syllable as "hero."
[61] See above, p. 27.
[62] Poebel, _Historical Texts_, p. 115 _seq_.
[63] Many years ago (_BA_ III, p. 376) I equated Etana with Ethan in
the Old Testament--therefore a West Semitic name.
[64] See Clay, _The Empire of the Amorites_, p. 80.
[65] Professor Clay strongly favors an Amoritic origin also
for Gilgamesh. His explanation of the name is set forth in his
recent work on _The Empire of the Amorites_, page 89, and is also
referred to in his work on _Amurru_, page 79, and in his volume
of _Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection_,
page 3, note. According to Professor Clay the original form of the
hero's name was West Semitic, and was something like _Bilga-Mash_,
the meaning of which was perhaps "the offspring of Mash." For the
first element in this division of the name cf. Pilikam, the name of
a ruler of an early dynasty, and Balak of the Old Testament. In view
of the fact that the axe figures so prominently in the Epic as an
instrument wielded by Gilgamesh, Professor Clay furthermore thinks it
reasonable to assume that the name was interpreted by the Babylonian
scribe as "the axe of Mash." In this way he would account for the
use of the determinative for weapons, which is also the sign Gish,
in the name. It is certainly noteworthy that the ideogram Gish-Tún in
the later form of _Gish-Tún-mash_ = _pasu_, "axe," _CT_ XVI, 38:14b,
etc. _Tun_ also = _pilaku_ "axe," _CT_ xii, 10:34b. Names with similar
element (besides Pilikam) are Belaku of the Hammurabi period, Bilakku
of the Cassite period, etc.
It is only proper to add that Professor Jastrow assumes the
responsibility for the explanation of the form and etymology of the
name Gilgamesh proposed in this volume. The question is one in regard
to which legitimate differences of opinion will prevail among scholars
until through some chance a definite decision, one way or the other,
can be reached.
[66] _me-ih-rù_ (line 191).
[67] Tablet I, 5, 23. Cf. I, 3, 2 and 29.
[68] Tablet IV, 4, 7 and I, 5, 3.
[69] Assyrian version, Tablet II, 3b 34, in an address of Shamash
to Enkidu.
[70] So Assyrian version, Tablet VIII, 3, 11. Also supplied VIII, 5,
20 and 21; and X, 1, 46-47 and 5, 6-7.
[71] Tablet XII, 3, 25.
[72] Ward, _Seal Cylinders of Western Asia_, Chap. X, and the
same author's _Cylinders and other Ancient Oriental Seals_--Morgan
collection Nos. 19-50.
[73] E.g., Ward No. 192, Enkidu has human legs like Gilgamesh;
also No. 189, where it is difficult to say which is Gilgamesh, and
which is Enkidu. The clothed one is probably Gilgamesh, though not
infrequently Gilgamesh is also represented as nude, or merely with
a girdle around his waist.
[74] E.g., Ward, Nos. 173, 174, 190, 191, 195 as well as 189 and 192.
[75] On the other hand, in Ward Nos. 459 and 461, the conflict
between the two heroes is depicted with the heroes distinguished
in more conventional fashion, Enkidu having the hoofs of an animal,
and also with a varying arrangement of beard and hair.
[76] See Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (Boston, 1898),
p. 468 _seq._
[77] Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_, p. 90 _seq._
[78] Pennsylvania tablet, l. 198 = Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 2, 37.
[79] "Enkidu blocked the gate" (Pennsylvania tablet, line 215) =
Assyrian version Tablet IV, 2, 46: "Enkidu interposed his foot at
the gate of the family house."
[80] Pennsylvania tablet, lines 218 and 224.
[81] Yale tablet, line 198; also to be supplied lines 13-14.
[82] Yale tablet, lines 190 and 191.
[83] _PSBA_ 1914, 65 _seq._ = Jensen III, 1a, 4-11, which can now be
completed and supplemented by the new fragment.
[84] I.e., Enkidu will save Gilgamesh.
[85] These two lines impress one as popular sayings--here applied
to Enkidu.
[86] King's fragment, col. I, 13-27, which now enables us to complete
Jensen III, 1a, 12-21.
[87] Yale tablet, lines 252-253.
[88] Yale tablet, lines 143-148 = Assyrian version, Tablet IV, 6,
26 _seq._
[89] Assyrian version, Tablet III, 2a, 13-14.
[90] Lines 215-222.
[91] Assyrian version, Tablet V, Columns 3-4. We have to assume that
in line 13 of column 4 (Jensen, p. 164), Enkidu takes up the thread
of conversation, as is shown by line 22: "Enkidu brought his dream
to him and spoke to Gilgamesh."
[92] Assyrian version, Tablet VI, lines 146-147.
[93] Lines 178-183.
[94] Lines 176-177.
[95] Tablet VII, Column 6.
[96] Assyrian version, Tablet VI, 200-203. These words are put into
the mouth of Gilgamesh (lines 198-199). It is, therefore, unlikely
that he would sing his own praise. Both Jensen and Ungnad admit that
Enkidu is to be supplied in at least one of the lines.
[97] Lines 109 and 112.
[98] Assyrian version, Tablet IX, 1, 8-9.
[99] Tablet VIII, 5, 2-6.
[100] So also Gressmann in Ungnad-Gressmann, _Das Gilgamesch-Epos_,
p. 97, regards Enkidu as the older figure.
[101] See Jastrow, _Adam and Eve in Babylonian Literature, AJSL_,
Vol. 15, pp. 193-214.
[102] Assyrian version, Tablet I, 2, 31-36.
[103] It will be recalled that Enkidu is always spoken of as "born
in the field."
[104] Note the repetition _ibtani_ "created" in line 33 of the "man
of Anu" and in line 35 of the offspring of Ninib. The creation of the
former is by the "heart," i.e., by the will of Aruru, the creation of
the latter is an act of moulding out of clay.
[105] Tablet I, Column 3.
[106] Following as usual the enumeration of lines in Jensen's edition.
[107] An analogy does not involve a dependence of one tale upon the
other, but merely that both rest on similar traditions, which _may_
have arisen independently.
[108] Note that the name of Eve is not mentioned till after the
fall (Genesis 3, 20). Before that she is merely _ishsha_, i.e.,
"woman," just as in the Babylonian tale the woman who guides Enkidu
is _harimtu_, "woman."
[109] "And he drank and became drunk" (Genesis 9, 21).
[110] "His heart became glad and his face shone" (Pennsylvania Tablet,
lines 100-101).